Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,081 Year: 5,338/9,624 Month: 363/323 Week: 3/204 Day: 3/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 345 of 479 (570605)
07-27-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by RAZD
07-27-2010 10:54 PM


Re: Gosh, a direct question instead of pretending (again) to know?
I don't see how it can be an "opinion." Opinions are valid subjectively, and differ from individual to individual. But taking a position about the existence of gods can't be an opinion - God either exists or doesn't. He can't exist for you and not exist for me; one of us must be wrong.
That's not an opinion; that's a position. You take one that is contradicted by the available evidence. That's rarely rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2010 10:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2010 11:14 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 371 of 479 (570832)
07-29-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by RAZD
07-28-2010 11:14 PM


Re: back to the begining?
Your opinion is that god/s do not exist.
I would correct you and say that my position is that gods don't exist, and your position is that one does. Opinions are subjective, but if God exists he must do so objectively. If God is an actually real thing he's objectively, not subjectively real.
Neither of these opinions is contradicted by currently available evidence (that I am aware of)
For instance, the existence of evil contradicts the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, however opinion -on it's own- has proven curiously incapable of affecting reality.
This would seem to be an unassailable basis from which to assert any old nonsense: "the sky is blue." "That's your opinion; mine is that it's green." "Evolution is substantiated by the evidence." "That's your opinion; mine is that creationism is true."
If you can't draw a distinction between opinions and positions, if everything is an opinion, then we're in a situation where none of your positions are falsifiable - because you can simply be of the opinion that they haven't been falsified, regardless of what evidence you're shown.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, however opinion -on it's own- has proven curiously incapable of affecting reality.
That wouldn't be on topic in this thread and I've laid out the evidentiary case against God many times in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2010 11:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 4:23 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 402 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2010 10:41 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 390 of 479 (571026)
07-29-2010 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 4:23 PM


Say we have a religion that believes in god.
I'm sorry, believes in what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 5:47 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 392 of 479 (571030)
07-29-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 5:47 PM


Of course What was I thinking?
"God" as an utterance doesn't communicate much meaning to me. I'm prepared to debate the existence of whatever you refer to when you say "God" but you need to tell me what that is, first.
It's like saying "let's debate the existence of vampires." Ok, but which vampires? Buffy-style, who crumble when staked or burned by the sun and cast no reflection? Blade-style, who transmit vampirism virally and are destroyed by silver? Twilight-style sparkly pheremone vampires? The naked space vampire chick from "Lifeforce"? One-legged hopping Chinese vampires? (For serious, Chinese vampires hop.) You'd have to be more specific.
I'm not trying to play games with you, I was asking you to unpack the word "God" for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 5:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 6:35 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 395 of 479 (571039)
07-29-2010 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 6:35 PM


Or, you could define it in your argument.
Sure, but then I'm going to define the most testable, most contradictable form of God, and be accused of grappling with a stawman "God" that "moderate" religionists reject in favor of "more sophisticated theology."
Or, you can just use whatever you were when you said:
In those threads I believe I made cases against definitions of "God" provided by others. I think it's fairest if proponents of the "God" position are the ones who determine the characteristics of their object of belief, just like how it works better when evolutionists, not creationists, define evolution.
If you said you had a case against vampires, and then I asked you for it, why wouldn't you just assume we're talking about whatever vampires you meant in the first place?
I may have cases against all those vampires, which would require you to be more specific if I'm to present one of those cases. And I'd like to deny you the ability to respond to a case against Buffy-style vamps by saying "ah, but I was talking about Twilight-style vamps all along!" That's a common evasion technique by the religious, to claim that the atheist who has made a case against God has made a case against the wrong God.
I'm asking you to tell me what "God" means, so I can present the accurate case. I don't think that's too much to ask, considering you're the one who asked me to present a case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 6:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 405 of 479 (571069)
07-29-2010 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by RAZD
07-29-2010 10:41 PM


Re: back to the begining?
It doesn't matter to me what you call it, it is still just your opinion, based on your world view, life experiences and biases.
No, again - an opinion is something reasonable people can reasonably disagree on.
When people adopt mutually inconsistent positions, those can't be described as matters of opinion. You can play all the dictionary games you like, but that doesn't prove that God can exist for you and not exist for me.
One of us has to be wrong. That's why it can't simply be a matter of opinion.
So you're saying that my position is that the sky is blue, and your position is that the sky is green, and that this terminology magically changes these positions from being opinions.
The only magic I believe in is the magic of language, where words have meaning. You're the one who believes in actual magic. Maintaining that the sky is green can't be an opinion; it's an issue of fact. Words mean things.
Thinking chocolate is the best ice cream flavor is an opinion, because I can think vanilla is the best flavor instead, and there's nothing inconsistent about our positions. But God can't exist for you and not exist for me. One of us has to be wrong (and according to the weight of the evidence, it's you.)
Opinion cannot change that recording or the spectrum labels.
That's how we know they're not opinions. Your opinion of ice cream, after all, can change or be changed; when you decide that strawberry is the best flavor, does that mean you were wrong when you thought it was chocolate? No, of course not. You were right then and you're right now, because they're matters of opinion - not matters of fact.
They taught this stuff in first grade, RAZD. Were you out that day or something?
You're expectations could be what is false here, rather than the existence of gods, so this is not evidence that god/s do not exist, just that your expectations are not met.
Of course this is just the dishonest theist game of retreat; where God is constantly redefined to lack whatever previously-essential characteristic was just disproven by the atheist. Ultimately you'll reach the point where "God" is just an empty word, a cypher devoid of all intelligible meaning - yet, somehow still maintained by you to exist.
I'm not at all interested in playing that game. I'm happy to debate whatever conception of God you want to define, but you have to pick one and stick with it.
Anyone of the belief\opinion\position that the earth and universe are young would have to be in denial of the massive objective empirical evidence of extreme old age of the earth and universe.
Sure. Just as anyone of the position that God exists would have to be in denial of the massive objective empirical evidence that there's absolutely no such thing; that it's an invention of the human imagination not an actual being of magical power.
And in your world where everything's just an opinion, who can say they're wrong to be in denial? Who's to tell them that their opinion that all that evidence can just be discarded is wrong? Not you, certainly; you've made it clear that you draw no distinction at all between matters of fact and matters of opinion. Everything's just an opinion, there's no true or false to it. There's not even provisional truth - just personal opinion.
They can still hold that opinion, but it would be delusional to do so, because the concept has been falsified.
Maybe they're just of the opinion that it hasn't been falsified at all. Who's to say they're wrong? Certainly not you. You've made that abundantly clear.
And, funny you should use that word "delusional":

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2010 10:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 2:44 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 478 of 479 (571682)
08-01-2010 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by RAZD
07-31-2010 2:44 PM


Re: back to the begining?
Sorry, still your opinion.
I think I've shown how it's not.
But you don't know which one, so it is opinion.
I do know which one, actually.
They are "mutually inconsistent positions" because one of us must be wrong, but you don't know which until the coin lands.
Correct. But that doesn't make it a matter of opinion. It's still a position to (eventually) be settled by evidence.
Which you have thus far failed to demonstrate.
Hrm, my memory is that I've long demonstrated it. Perhaps you'd like to open a thread on this subject, I'd hate to be a part of us continuing off-topic. Anyway others are certainly giving you a run for your money on the "existence of God" issue; it seems to be you who's having trouble finding evidence for your position.
As pointed out, this is not evidence that god/s per se do not exist, but that your expectation was not met.
Since that expectation would be met if God existed, the unmet expectation is evidence for the non-existence of God.
This is not objective empirical evidence for the non-existence of god/s, this is you voicing your opinion about what a god would be like
Incorrect. I have no particular opinion on what "God would be like", but the proponents of the God-exists position have defined the character and properties of God. Under almost all of those definitions its trivial to demonstrate the contradiction with reality. And, of course, for the dishonest theists such as yourself who insist on defending God-as-cypher, it's sufficient to note that there's nothing to refute - your position that "God exists" is a meaningless utterance if you refuse to be tied down to any definition of the word "God."
Ah yes, the old ad hominem attack when all else fails, imply that the messenger is uneducated and ignorant.
No, I'm just curious how it is you come to be so completely unaware that there's a difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion.
Thus when the coin is in the air, the logical and rational opinion\position to take is that I don't know.
That's true - you don't know. Unless it's a weighted coin. When the likelihood of heads is, say, 90%, suddenly it becomes much more reasonable to say "Heads is the likely outcome." Not, "I know it will be heads", but to arrive at the provisional, if non-conclusive, position that heads will be the result of the coin toss. You'll be right 90% of the time, after all, and that's pretty good.
The evidence between the existence of God and the non-existence of God is not equally weighted. The preponderance falls on the side of non-existence. That's what makes provisional acceptance of the Strong Atheist position so logical and reasonable.
Those who assert the existence of a teapot in orbit of Alpha Cenauri do not have the same amount of evidence on their side as those who assert the nonexistence of such a teapot, despite there being no evidence for either proposition. Those propositions are not equally likely despite the absence of evidence for both, hence it's reasonable to come to the provisional conclusion that such a teapot is not present.
Interestingly, continuing to assert that there is "massive objective empirical evidence" does not magically make it appear.
And continuing to assert that I'm wrong, or that I've attacked you personally, or that an absence of evidence supports existence or non-existence equally, simply doesn't make it so.
Amusingly, I say no such thing.
Abundantly you do, and have, when you assert that what is properly considered a matter of fact is an "opinion."
Ah yes, Dawkins, the shock-jock of anti-theism. Are you skeptical of any of his claims?
Why wouldn't I be?
Are you going to argue that because he published a popular press book, that this is evidence that god/s do not exist?
Not in the slightest. I'm merely suggesting that someone who holds delusions should be careful about calling skepticism of those delusions a "delusion."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 2:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024